MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790192464 · doi:10.1002/pep2.24056

New directions for urotensin II receptor ligands

2018· article· en· W2790192464 on OpenAlexafffund
Étienne Billard, Mustapha Iddir, Hassan Nassour, Laura Lee‐Gosselin, Mathilde Poujol de Molliens, David Chatenet

Bibliographic record

VenuePeptide Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular, Neuropeptides, and Oxidative Stress Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUrotensin-IIAllosteric regulationG protein-coupled receptorPeptideReceptorEndogenyChemistryPharmacologyBiochemistryStereochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The urotensinergic system, formed by a G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) termed UT and two endogenous peptide ligands Urotensin II (UII, H‐Glu‐Thr‐Pro‐Asp‐[Cys‐Phe‐Trp‐Lys‐Tyr‐Cys]‐Val‐OH) and Urotensin II‐related peptide (URP, H‐Ala‐[Cys‐Phe‐Trp‐Lys‐Tyr‐Cys]‐Val‐OH), is currently regarded as a potential key contributor to cardiovascular functions. While multiple animal studies have shown the therapeutic potential of UT ligands for the treatment of heart failure and atherosclerosis, their lack of efficacy in clinical studies points toward a greater understanding of UT pharmacology at both the molecular and cellular levels. UII and URP are cyclic peptides that share a common and strictly conserved bioactive cyclic core (‐Cys‐Phe‐Trp‐Lys‐Tyr‐Cys‐) but differ by their extracyclic N‐terminal residues. While sharing common biological activity, these two endogenous ligands appear to be functionally selective, displaying different specific effects through the selection/stabilization of particular UT active conformations. Thus, UII and URP should be regarded as two distinct actors in the control of cardiovascular functions. In this regard, more focus on URP biological effects had to be paid, while systematic evaluation of new antagonists against both endogenous ligands appears mandatory. Overall, this review offers an overview of the actual horizon of UT pharmacology, notably concerning the development of biased ligands and allosteric modulators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeptide ScienceSame topicCardiovascular, Neuropeptides, and Oxidative Stress ResearchFrench-language works237,207